News: UKIP statement of Accounts 2007- membership 15878!

charlie endell · 05-08-2008, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

Nothing new maybe, except of course they put paid to the lie we have seen written here on a number of occasions that the party are losing members wholesale. a massive loss in 2006/7, 22. At a time when Labour and the other parties are millions in debt UKIP is solvent.

Absolutely correct, Bob. Those figures show no sign at all of any decrease in membership.

I think you were taught maths and politics by the same bloke who trained your barber.

mrabody · 05-08-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Croucher

No, UKIP makes similar mistakes time and time again, not generally the same ones. And let's be honest, it wouldn't matter how the elections were organised, what the selection process was, who the returning officer was or what voting system was used, there'd be a solid core of people voiciferously complaining that it was fixed/rigged/unfair/open to abuse/etc etc.

It is my understanding that various individuals offered to fund the cost of having Electoral Reform Services run the candidate selection ballots for UKIP
in at least some of the regions.

Quote:

For example, look at those standing on more than 1 list. Their names are publicly available on the website, the same place one would have to look to discover the rules which they have, according to this website, broken. Regardless of the pedantry relating to what constitutes 'informing the members', I was always under the impression that the purpose of voting was to select the best person for the job or, in this case, to rank the contenders in the order in which voters feel they will fulfil the job requirements of UKIP MEP. You either think Andreasen will be the third best, or you don't. Whether she is standing elsewhere is immaterial, because she either will or will not end up in the position on the list to which she is voted. In 2004, ISTR that a number of candidates withdrew after selection and before the close of nominations, with one (David Abbott) withdrawing after nominations had closed. The withdrawl at the close of selection of candidates who have attained a higher position or who feel they are better able to represent another region as a candidate makes no difference to the list, as those placed below the withdrawing candidate are simply promoted one place. The idea that this somehow invalidates the election or is in some way actionable is ludicrous.

You are wrong to suggest that the fact that a candidate is standing in more than one region is of no importance to those who are casting ballots. There are lots of reasons why it may be considered relevant. First of all voters may assume rightly or wrongly that the candidate isn't committed to their region if they are also seeking selection elsewhere. Secondly many voters may not want to vote for a candidate who is also standing in another region simply because if the candidate chooses in the end to stand in the other region their vote in the selection process will have been wasted. So to suggest that the fact that someone else is standing

And, the fact is the rules very clearly state that the members of the party are to be informed of candidates who are standing in more than one region. If the rule was so inconsequential then why even have it?

Quote:

Unfortunately, there are far more people who deem themselves eminently qualified to point out the holes in the system (or to point out holes that don't, in fact, exist) than there are people capable of fixing them. There are always a whole host of 'solutions' posted here which at a casual glance seem good, but would in reality prove impossible to implement because of a combination of financial/staffing/political reasons which everyone seems to pretend don't exist.

As I pointed out above, there have been offers from various individuals to finance the use of Electoral Reform Services. And it isn't about pointing out "holes". In this case it is about a failure to follow the rules as set out in the guidelines.

twizzel · 05-08-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob FM

It was only available to a few, good grief try about how many trillions (exaggeration) of people who use the WWW. Vote Paul Wesson, it is not a dormant site.
One also assumes that the release of the safety catch was on his official RAF weapon. Had that been known at the time he would have been court marshalled and probably thrown out of the service, whatever his motivation. Please therefore provide evidence of your conclusion as to me knowing who these stalkers, or stalker is/are or apologise immediately. The fact that he has chosen not respond is again irrelevant, I am responding to your posts, involving him. Perhaps you should desist and there would ergo be nothing to respond to. I also welcome the attention of the moderators in this regard then just perhaps the constant insults directed at me will also desist. But as I have previously commented fairness sadly is not a trait of this site, I am of course prepared to live with that.

Bob these two will never change don't waste your valuable time.

Aardvark · 05-08-2008, 09:43 PM

twizzel,

You never change either. Trite and ill informed comments remain your speciality.

Still you now have an ally in Bob and if you ask Swindon Branch nicely I'm sure they'll let you tell them all the things that French polishers know of the constitutional law of our land and the treason laws. Bob and you are intellectual equals; you'll enjoy each other's company. You seem to share a hairdresser.

Geoffrey Collier · 06-08-2008, 10:29 AM

Mark Croucher: Should UKIP decide, that the two areas which have caused considerable
problems in the past, election management and Party accounts, should be resolved, that would be quite possible. Employing the Electoral Reform Services, and allowing an accounting company of good reputation to prepare all our financial statements, would be cheaper than the method we employ at present. Furthermore, it appears that Marta Andreasen is not happy in her post, after only a few months with us. She now wants to leave us via the Strasbourg Parliament, and she is being encouraged to do that, by those who lauded praise on her when she was originally employed. There is a clear problem concerning the relationship of UKIP to Marta Andreasen. The present arrangement concerning the accounts cannot be justified on economic grounds, and good empirical evidence to justify it is virtually non existent. Should you disagree with what I say, Mark, what would you produce as evidence?

We have two immediate problems with the pending selection process. The first concerns the matter of dual-region candidates. The maldistribution of the votes cast, within those particular regions, is so patent that we should not risk potential litigation from an aggrieved candidate who believe s/he has suffered harm by that arrangement.

The other matter concerns the planned events, following the declaration of the election results. In theory, we will have our 'voting order', so to speak, the reality may be quite different.

Nigel Farage told the Winchester hustings meeting, that next month (September) UKIP and Declan Ganley, will sit down for serious discussions, with the view to negotiating a mutual agreement between us, for the 2009 elections. Despite Sunday Telegraph reports, (July 20th. 08), Nigel believes that Ganley has no intention of contesting the MEP elections within the UK. He may be wrong, NF admitted, but Ganley may leave it to us. We are further advantaged by the friendly and cordial relations which already between Farage and Ganley. This is 'good stuff', but at this stage it is only founded on presumptions. Ganley may not withdraw, what then will be the implications for UKIP?
Perhaps an accommodation can be agreed, but it could be one which is inconsistent with our present candidate-selection process.

Presumably our UKIP negotiating team already exists; our bargaining positions will be in place, and our list of possible options identified. Surely, reason must dictate that we halt our candidate- selections, until after the UKIP/Ganley meeting. That would provide time forany reflection and adaptation, considered necessary, to our chosen method. It could also provide a means by which possible litigation will be avoided. It would only require a delay of three or four weeks, but the benefits could be significant. What do our candidates believe, what are their views on this matter?

Tim Worstall · 06-08-2008, 11:45 AM

"What do our candidates believe, what are their views on this matter?"

Redo the whole selection, hustings and voting process? This candidate to be a candidate thinks that this might not be all that wise an idea. Roughly speaking there's a hundred or so people standing....and there's some 15,000 people potentially making decisions about how to vote.

If you wanted to delay the vote by three or four weeks, well, memories don't last for ever. You'd need to run the hustings again, wouldn't you?

All that organisation, all those people, again?

Further, does anyone really believe that whatever deal is reached (or might be, could be, whatever) will happen at that first meeting? That it won't carry on for a few more weeks or months as positions are laid out, considered, negotiated and so on?

For me personally a delay might be good, but for the party and its finances I really rather doubt that it would be.

So in my opinion, no, not a good idea.

Geoffrey Collier · 06-08-2008, 12:47 PM

Tim Worstall: Good sir, reflect on other options; a short delay could allow time to, 'think again' about the maldistribution of votes, which will occur should the present arrangement to allow to continue in the dual-candidate regions. It would also remove the risk of potential litigation by candidates who suffer a real or perceivd grievenace.

The NEC, would certainly have agreed the UKIP/Ganley negotiations, but may not have given due consideration to their own status as, 'bankers of last resort', should the Party's resources not be sufficient when the 'bills come in'. Many are just ordinary individuals of modest circumstances, with young children and older ones who are students. Have we not also a duty to consider their circumstances?

Are you denying, Mr Worstall, that their circumstances should not be important determinants in the 'decision making' process? With the benefit of reflection, you may agree with a delay being justified.

gc · 06-08-2008, 01:43 PM

One interesting dynamic that has not been discussed in relation to Ganley's future political activities is his relationship with Jens Peter Bonde.

Remember that Bonde's political activities now are conducted through the EU Democrats, a pan-European political party.

Ganley and Bonde are close. NF appears to be the gooseberry in this arrangement.

Aardvark · 06-08-2008, 02:23 PM

Which no doubt, if he fails to get anywhere, will lead to the headline:

Gooseberry Crumbles

Geoffrey Collier · 06-08-2008, 02:28 PM

gc: In the coffee houses of England, that (Bonde) is a matter which has already been enthusiastically discussed. Let us hope that it was something noted by the NEC when they agreed to the September meeting with Ganley. Has anyone any idea as to the venue for this meeting? Presumably the broad agenda will have been sighted and approved by NEC members. I have been told that a national paper is seeking details
of what is being is being planned, because Nigel Farage's predictions as to Ganley's intentions, are quite the opposite to what the Sunday Telegraph were told by Ganley on the 20th. July. A quick call to the S.T. may be able to shed some light on the matter, but there is still plenty of time to follow the plot. Ganley's office may be willing to make a statement!

05-08-2008, 09:43 PM	#74 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,973	twizzel, You never change either. Trite and ill informed comments remain your speciality. Still you now have an ally in Bob and if you ask Swindon Branch nicely I'm sure they'll let you tell them all the things that French polishers know of the constitutional law of our land and the treason laws. Bob and you are intellectual equals; you'll enjoy each other's company. You seem to share a hairdresser. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

06-08-2008, 02:23 PM	#79 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,973	Which no doubt, if he fails to get anywhere, will lead to the headline: Gooseberry Crumbles __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-08-2008, 10:29 AM	#75 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,160	Mark Croucher: Should UKIP decide, that the two areas which have caused considerable problems in the past, election management and Party accounts, should be resolved, that would be quite possible. Employing the Electoral Reform Services, and allowing an accounting company of good reputation to prepare all our financial statements, would be cheaper than the method we employ at present. Furthermore, it appears that Marta Andreasen is not happy in her post, after only a few months with us. She now wants to leave us via the Strasbourg Parliament, and she is being encouraged to do that, by those who lauded praise on her when she was originally employed. There is a clear problem concerning the relationship of UKIP to Marta Andreasen. The present arrangement concerning the accounts cannot be justified on economic grounds, and good empirical evidence to justify it is virtually non existent. Should you disagree with what I say, Mark, what would you produce as evidence? We have two immediate problems with the pending selection process. The first concerns the matter of dual-region candidates. The maldistribution of the votes cast, within those particular regions, is so patent that we should not risk potential litigation from an aggrieved candidate who believe s/he has suffered harm by that arrangement. The other matter concerns the planned events, following the declaration of the election results. In theory, we will have our 'voting order', so to speak, the reality may be quite different. Nigel Farage told the Winchester hustings meeting, that next month (September) UKIP and Declan Ganley, will sit down for serious discussions, with the view to negotiating a mutual agreement between us, for the 2009 elections. Despite Sunday Telegraph reports, (July 20th. 08), Nigel believes that Ganley has no intention of contesting the MEP elections within the UK. He may be wrong, NF admitted, but Ganley may leave it to us. We are further advantaged by the friendly and cordial relations which already between Farage and Ganley. This is 'good stuff', but at this stage it is only founded on presumptions. Ganley may not withdraw, what then will be the implications for UKIP? Perhaps an accommodation can be agreed, but it could be one which is inconsistent with our present candidate-selection process. Presumably our UKIP negotiating team already exists; our bargaining positions will be in place, and our list of possible options identified. Surely, reason must dictate that we halt our candidate- selections, until after the UKIP/Ganley meeting. That would provide time forany reflection and adaptation, considered necessary, to our chosen method. It could also provide a means by which possible litigation will be avoided. It would only require a delay of three or four weeks, but the benefits could be significant. What do our candidates believe, what are their views on this matter?

06-08-2008, 11:45 AM	#76 (permalink)
Tim Worstall Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 102	"What do our candidates believe, what are their views on this matter?" Redo the whole selection, hustings and voting process? This candidate to be a candidate thinks that this might not be all that wise an idea. Roughly speaking there's a hundred or so people standing....and there's some 15,000 people potentially making decisions about how to vote. If you wanted to delay the vote by three or four weeks, well, memories don't last for ever. You'd need to run the hustings again, wouldn't you? All that organisation, all those people, again? Further, does anyone really believe that whatever deal is reached (or might be, could be, whatever) will happen at that first meeting? That it won't carry on for a few more weeks or months as positions are laid out, considered, negotiated and so on? For me personally a delay might be good, but for the party and its finances I really rather doubt that it would be. So in my opinion, no, not a good idea.

06-08-2008, 12:47 PM	#77 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,160	Tim Worstall: Good sir, reflect on other options; a short delay could allow time to, 'think again' about the maldistribution of votes, which will occur should the present arrangement to allow to continue in the dual-candidate regions. It would also remove the risk of potential litigation by candidates who suffer a real or perceivd grievenace. The NEC, would certainly have agreed the UKIP/Ganley negotiations, but may not have given due consideration to their own status as, 'bankers of last resort', should the Party's resources not be sufficient when the 'bills come in'. Many are just ordinary individuals of modest circumstances, with young children and older ones who are students. Have we not also a duty to consider their circumstances? Are you denying, Mr Worstall, that their circumstances should not be important determinants in the 'decision making' process? With the benefit of reflection, you may agree with a delay being justified.

06-08-2008, 01:43 PM	#78 (permalink)
gc Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 569	One interesting dynamic that has not been discussed in relation to Ganley's future political activities is his relationship with Jens Peter Bonde. Remember that Bonde's political activities now are conducted through the EU Democrats, a pan-European political party. Ganley and Bonde are close. NF appears to be the gooseberry in this arrangement.

06-08-2008, 02:28 PM	#80 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,160	gc: In the coffee houses of England, that (Bonde) is a matter which has already been enthusiastically discussed. Let us hope that it was something noted by the NEC when they agreed to the September meeting with Ganley. Has anyone any idea as to the venue for this meeting? Presumably the broad agenda will have been sighted and approved by NEC members. I have been told that a national paper is seeking details of what is being is being planned, because Nigel Farage's predictions as to Ganley's intentions, are quite the opposite to what the Sunday Telegraph were told by Ganley on the 20th. July. A quick call to the S.T. may be able to shed some light on the matter, but there is still plenty of time to follow the plot. Ganley's office may be willing to make a statement!